Congressional Republicans’ halfhearted resistance to the
reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act has been portrayed as evidence
of the GOP’s “War on Women” – a campaign that we know exists because Jay Leno’s
wife tells him so, and that’s corroboration enough to satisfy most news
editors.

The bill would have sailed through, if not for the addition
of several Democrat amendments.The most
controversial of these allows non-Indian men who are accused of assaulting American
Indian women on reservations to be tried by the tribal courts, thereby
depriving the suspects of their Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights.In addition, the Democrats expanded the bill
to protect gay men and transsexuals as well as women.Yet another new provision allows illegal
aliens to obtain visas by claiming to have been
abused.

House Republicans proposed their own version of the bill,
which omitted these provocative items.It was voted down, with all but two Democrats in opposition.So, in reality, far more Democrats than
Republicans voted against renewing VAWA, but don’t expect it to be reported
that way.

If liberals had any sense of irony, they might have noticed
that they were posing as foes of violence against women at the same time that
they cheered President Obama’s directive on women in combat.When given a chance to undermine America’s
military, and satisfy their own fealty to the Cult of Diversity, they find it not
only acceptable, but laudable to subject women to the most horrific violence
imaginable.

A less extreme example can be seen in liberals’ support for
Lauren Silberman, who comically tried out as a kicker
at an NFL combine.Contrary to popular
belief, kickers are not exempt from the violence of football.They are sometimes expected to block and
tackle, and to fight for loose balls.There’s also a quaint tradition that referees call “roughing the
kicker.”Imagine extending one leg as
far in the air as it will go, and having 250 pounds of humanity come barreling
into your other leg.Who, but a liberal,
would encourage a woman to expose herself to such danger?

Liberals might say that by “violence against women,” what
they mean is domestic abuse in particular, but even then, they aren’t
credible.As much as feminists like to
portray husbands as the chief abusers, a married woman is far less likely to
suffer physical abuse than a single woman who shares her residence with a
series of transient boyfriends.The
prevalence of violence against women has undoubtedly increased as the welfare
state – with help from the sexual revolution – has dissolved the nuclear family.
Yet seldom does any liberal express so much as a pang of regret over it.

The central hypocrisy of feminism is that it demands that
society treat men and women exactly the same, while also expecting it to
maintain special considerations and protections
for women.No wonder its adherents find
reality so problematic.They seem to
think they can put women on the battle lines alongside men, and assume that the
bullets will distinguish between the two.

Conservatives are the ones who recognize that equality
between the sexes does not mean that their societal roles must be
identical.Women can be “the gentler
sex,” who ought to be shielded from levels of violence that are acceptable
toward and among men, without that making them inferior beings.

If you don’t accept that premise, as liberals tend not to,
there is no rational basis for specifically combating violence against
women.Maybe that’s why the Democrat
revisions to VAWA lose sight of that concern.Now, it’s the Violence Against Women, Homosexuals, and Men Who “Identify
As Women” Act, with a couple bones being thrown to the racial Balkanists for good measure.They might as well have simply retitled it
the Violence Against Likely Democrat Voters Act.

If liberal Democrats were really concerned about violence
against women, they would never have used sadistic pornographer Larry Flynt as a party operative.They wouldn’t idolize Bill Clinton, who was famously accused of rape, is
a notorious pervert, and is known by his friends to exhibit “purple
rages.”They would have been outraged by Al
Gore’s explanation that even if Clinton is a rapist, his liberal policies more
than made up for it.

In the liberal world of metaphor and euphemism, “violence
against women” doesn’t mean real violence against real women.It is therefore unimportant whether or not
Clinton ever brutalized women like Juanita Broaddrick.What really matters is that he never spoke
disapprovingly of a feminist TV character like Murphy Brown.